AuthorTopic: Signatures - Limited Edition Run (Read 1296 times)

Some time ago a gallery was exhibiting the works of a well known french photographer.No digital photography at that time.I was chatting with the curator when a potential buyer came to where we were sitting and asked for the price of one of the prints.The curator named the price. Then the man asked "to how many is this picture limited? I see the signature but not the limit" (Say 3/20 or the like)"No limit" "Ah no, then it is too expensive.." He didn't buy.I can understand the limitations and the numbering of the copy when talking of lithographies for example.But in photography? Even in the wet times where copies were not identical it seems to me a kind of snobbery...And being prepared to pay more just to belong to the small circle of owners...Any opinions?

Absolute agreement here, Rab. It's an affectation. With printing processes like etching, where the plate degenerates gradually as printing proceeds, numbering the prints and limiting the print run might make some limited sort of sense, but with photography it's so stupid it's funny. Since the negative or file doesn't degenerate, and since you learn as you proceed with the print run, the fiftieth print may be better than the first. It's just one of those asinine ideas that becomes embedded in ignorant minds.

Some time ago a gallery was exhibiting the works of a well known french photographer.No digital photography at that time.I was chatting with the curator when a potential buyer came to where we were sitting and asked for the price of one of the prints.The curator named the price. Then the man asked "to how many is this picture limited? I see the signature but not the limit" (Say 3/20 or the like)"No limit""Ah no, then it is too expensive.." He didn't buy.I can understand the limitations and the numbering of the copy when talking of lithographies for example.But in photography? Even in the wet times where copies were not identical it seems to me a kind of snobbery...And being prepared to pay more just to belong to the small circle of owners...Any opinions?

The example you give is clearly not a limited edition.

Limiting the edition is a perfectly valid marketing strategy: like it or not.

Limiting the edition is a perfectly valid marketing strategy: like it or not.

Yes you are rightBut the topic here is about art, not marketing.

Marketing:

"They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned...They would make fine servants...With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. " (C.Columbus)

"...And such was the joy and pleasure that these simple people got from the trifles that they returned the next day loaded with gold jewels, turkeys...and in exchange for everything they took only a few strings of beads and needles and ribbons (Hernan Cortes)."

"and they wanted a signature on the piece of "art" and paid generously for it, and it was promised that there would be not more than 200 copies of it... " (Rabanito - Life of the Artists)

Isn't that similar what happens to such buyers? Giving dollars for trifles?

But, isn't it a little depressing?Doing funny things in which we don't believe like limiting the numbers of copies because the buyers want it to be so?I think I recall an essay by Robert Adams on critics an criticism - in a parallel line.I lent the book to somebody and the poor thing never came back :-(

You are right of course. And I as a lowly amateur have no right to criticize whatsoever. Just making conversation.

In my humble experience looking at the professional work of professional photographers trying to sell their work promoting watches, beer or whatever what they produce is mostly garbage ( From the point of view of "art", our topic here) . But they make money if they are good at it.For the rest, those who love this medium as a kind of "art", could maybe frustrating following conventions in which they don't believe and perhaps despise.